Bilbao v. Bilbao
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the validity of a joint and reciprocal last will and testament executed on October 6, 1931, by Victor S. Bilbao and his wife, Ramona M. Navarro. The will directed that all their properties, both private and conjugal, be transmitted to the surviving spouse. Victor S. Bilbao died on July 13, 1943. 2. Procedural History: The petition for the probate of this joint will was filed by the surviving widow, Ramona M. Navarro. The petition was opposed by Filemon Abringe and other relatives of the deceased. The oppositors argued that the will was invalid because it was executed by husband and wife for their reciprocal benefit and not in accordance with legal requirements. The Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental denied the petition, finding the will invalid under Article 669 of the Civil Code and Section 614 et seq. of Act No. 190. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court on appeal from the decision of the lower court. The sole assignment of error posits that the lower court erred in not finding a joint and reciprocal will, particularly between husband and wife, to be valid under the prevailing law. The appellant contends that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding wills impliedly repealed Article 669 of the Civil Code, which prohibits conjoint wills, and that such wills are permissible under American law, which influenced the Philippine Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether Article 669 of the Civil Code, prohibiting joint and reciprocal wills, has been repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether a joint and reciprocal will executed by spouses is valid under Philippine law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, denying the petition for probate. The Court held that Article 669 of the Civil Code remains in force and prohibits joint and reciprocal wills, and therefore, the will in question is void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the repeal of Article 669 of the Civil Code: The Court held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on wills did not completely supersede Chapter I, Title III of the Civil Code on the same subject matter, thus not resulting in the complete repeal of Civil Code provisions. The Court cited several cases where Civil Code articles regarding wills were applied alongside provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, demonstrating that the two laws are not mutually exclusive. The Court also clarified that the case of Macrohon Ong Ham vs. Saavedra did not validate joint wills, as the issue of validity was not passed upon on appeal. Furthermore, the reproduction of Article 669 verbatim in Article 818 of the New Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386) indicated the Legislature's intent that the prohibition remains. Therefore, Article 669 of the Civil Code is still in force. On the validity of joint and reciprocal wills: The Court ruled that Article 669 of the Civil Code, which prohibits two or more persons from making a will conjointly or in the same instrument, either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person, is still in force. The Court found the provision to be wise and not against public policy, particularly for spouses, as it prevents the dominant spouse from dictating terms and discourages potential foul play motivated by the survivor inheriting all properties. Consequently, the joint and reciprocal will executed by Victor Bilbao and Ramona M. Navarro was deemed void.
Main Doctrine
A joint and reciprocal will executed by spouses is void and not permissible under Philippine law, as Article 669 of the Civil Code, which prohibits such wills, remains in force and has not been repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure.